I now have my box running as it should be, with very few problems. The
only Linux one is the screen with the 3 question marks. Looking at the
journal, there are repeated occurrences of

A start job for unit UNIT has begun execution.

folowed by

A start job for unit UNIT has finished successfully.

but there is no unit called "UNIT" that I am aware of. There is no hint
of an error at that point, but the constant repetition of that cycle
seems unusual. As it stands, it is too vague to be of any use. Is it a
shorthand that systemd uses, rather than looking up the name of each
unit in turn?

On 15.01.2022 at 07:43, Doug Laidlaw scribbled:

> I now have my box running as it should be, with very few problems.
> The only Linux one is the screen with the 3 question marks. Looking
> at the journal, there are repeated occurrences of
>
> A start job for unit UNIT has begun execution.
>
> folowed by
>
> A start job for unit UNIT has finished successfully.
>
> but there is no unit called "UNIT" that I am aware of. There is no
> hint of an error at that point, but the constant repetition of that
> cycle seems unusual. As it stands, it is too vague to be of any use.
> Is it a shorthand that systemd uses, rather than looking up the name
> of each unit in turn?

That sounds like it should have been spelled "$UNIT" in whatever script
is calling it, and somebody forgot to add the "$". Or in other words,
it sounds like someone was trying to create a verbose message that
references a variable but instead of using the correct syntax used the
literal name of the variable instead.

--
With respect,
= Aragorn =

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 15:43:39 -0500, Doug Laidlaw <laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> wrote:

> I now have my box running as it should be, with very few problems. The
> only Linux one is the screen with the 3 question marks. Looking at the
> journal, there are repeated occurrences of

The three question marks in the middle of the screen is coming from plymouth
when it fails to show the splash screen.

> A start job for unit UNIT has begun execution.
>
> folowed by
>
> A start job for unit UNIT has finished successfully.
>
> but there is no unit called "UNIT" that I am aware of. There is no hint
> of an error at that point, but the constant repetition of that cycle
> seems unusual. As it stands, it is too vague to be of any use. Is it a
> shorthand that systemd uses, rather than looking up the name of each
> unit in turn?

As per "man systemd", there are 11 types of units that can use systemd to do
things.

Something is messed up on that install if the unit is being called UNIT. Doesn't
happen on any of my installs, or with anyone else I've heard about before this.

Can you get the output of (as root) "systemctl status"? That may help narrowing
down where the problem(s) is/are.

Regards, Dave Hodgins